| Posted in an atheist Facebook group: "There are things, i.e. stuff that exists. Some of those things are recognized by all as a creation (e.g. fake flower, airplane, landscaped garden), whereas other things are by many not recognized to be a creation (e.g. real flower, bird, forest). Concerning the things that are recognized as creation, the evidence threshold is close to zero: a fake flower is acknowledged as a creation at first sight, without any question about its origin. There is no need to meet&greet with the designer or the factory owner as a condition precedent to acknowledge that a fake flower is created. We see it and know it. Contrary thereto, for reasons unknown and unexplained thusfar, many people raise the evidence bar to infinity towards a real flower, a bird and other things. Because the real flower doesn't meet this higher evidence threshold, it is not acknowledged to be a creation. How and why this evidence threshold is establised and by what criteria it is applied to some things (bird), but not all things (airplane) is unclear. I've seen the attempt to justify a raised evidence bar by saying that the evidence bar hasnt been met: "There is no evidence that a real flower is created". This is circular reasoning and doesnt explain why the evidence bar is raised arbitrarily(?) in the first place. Hence the question, why on one hand do we all understand at first glance and without doubt or question that a fake flower is created, but on the other hand choose many to raise their evidence bar to infinity concerning a real flower and even deny that it is created? Please note, this question isn't about the identity of the creator of certain things (bird or airplane). I dont know who designed or made my car, I dont care either, but I know it's created. How about that bird?" Post script: I have found that no atheist in the atheism group that I visited thus far has been willing to give a straight answer to my simple question, as outlined in my post. All I get is twists and turns in the form of strawman fallacy, lots of circular reasoning, ad hominem and other stuff. Howbeit, when I narrowed it down and asked what evidence it would take to know that an airplane is created, I did get one honest reply from Thomas Ingram (see pic)  |
|
|